Pope Francis: You Cannot Impose Democracy On Cultures That Have No History Of Democra

My travel in Islamic countries and my Muslim friends give me a far better insight.

Plus, what I see people reading tends to be the writings of other religions whose vested interest has nothing to with honest exposition.

I'm so sick of people pointing to Christians whose sites push blatant lies and gross exaggerations as they attempt to pitch their religion as being "superior".

 

Some odd conclusions you make... Where do I suggest it's more than a majority? I said it's not as unusual for imams to support terrorism as it is for priests. Your interpretation of that is... interesting.

We need indeed stick to the truth. First step is to recognise the problem. Islam does have a problem with terrorism that no other religion has.

 

Are you saying zeal and necessity justify terrorism? I don't agree. There have been times many other people have both zeal and necessity and do not resort to terrorism. As I've said to you many times, I think that terrorism is barbarous, and that muslims have less qualms about using it, because of their religion and culture..

Indeed, there is truth to this. When the ottoman padishah was the caliph, he had moral authority over all sunni muslims, and he was forced by pragmatic political reasons to moderate islam. We often say that politics and Islam do not mix well together, and that is indeed true when a primarily religious leader takes on the role of politician, because then he will try to shape reality according to Islam. But when it is a primarily political leader who has the secondary role of religious leader, it's the reverse: islam will be shaped according to reality. So, it would actually be better if the muslims got their caliph back, and that he is not a purely religious leader, but constrained by politics.

 

Surely you never opened a history book to see what the Spanish did to the Incas, or what the Americans did to the native Americans. Lift the rock and see the sunlight.

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Chri...n-Conquest-Empire-(incl-violence-persecution)

 

Isn't the coercive imposition of an unfamiliar form of government on a sovereign nation the very epitome of fascism?

 

No? It is not.

 

I see, so if Sharia, for example, was imposed on Sweden against the wishes of both the government and population, what would you call that? Was the 'General Government' of Poland during WW2 not an example fascism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Government

 

Well. Democracy is not a natural state of society. It is not a top possible stage of social development. The very logics to see democracy as the only possibility and the best organisation was an exaggeration from the very beginning. Some people wear jeans, some - trousers and neither is obligatory. It works perfectly on the level of trousers but the form of state is still a holly cow.

The urge to install democracy in the countries which need to be conquered obviously originates from a medieval tradition of kings who invented their divine rights for the region they wanted to control. Just the same. Even the casus belli is just the same.

At the same time I need to mention that democratic societies are better managed, controlled and they are more competitive so far and there is a good sense of implementing reforms with that aim. But these reforms MUST happen from the inside. Without even a glimpse of interference from the western side. Otherwise the democratic values will never take serious roots in the society.

Firstly it refers to media. The development of media lead to forming a monstrous media magnates who never earn on the buyers, but do earn on advertisment. When this kind of media (which I call propaganda) exists inside a country it is fine, but when it exists in a different country being used for color revolutions - this is bad. Because the smaller countries have to protect themselves and waste resources on their own internal propaganda which in turn holds the development and prevents democratic changes of society. So it looks that countries who obtained democracy already keep this state, while the rest balance between the extremes of pre-revolution despotism and post-revolution anarchy.

 

How about, "forceful imposition of sharia"? You don't seem to understand what fascism is... It's not synonymous with "forceful imposition". Fascism isn't a method, it's not a system of government.. it's an ideology. Yes, fascists tend to favour certain methods -like force- and certain government types -like totalitarianism. But force, totalitarianism, and fascism are three separate things.

 

False analogy as sharia does not respect the will of the majority while guaranteeing the rights of the minority as does liberal democracy.

 

Its based on governance by consensus.. What do you think Majlis is?

 

No it's not. it's based on islam. Maybe in some areas the people are consulted, but surely you can't claim that the people could vote contrary to islam under sharia? Under islamic law it is the word of god which is the basis for law, not the people.

 

Nah, they can be more than that.

In absolute monarchies and other other un-democratic nations, religion (of all brandings) serves as the voice of the people and the only opposition to power that is tolerated.

 

Liberal democracy under which the will of the majority is respected while the rights of the minority are guaranteed is the only logical social contract to enter into out of the state of nature in accordance with the laws of nature "reason" to best protect mans life, liberty, and property.

No propaganda would be what comes from your Russian Ministry of Mass Communications and Media as opposed to actual journalism which comes from the free press of the West.

 

Absolute nonsense Sharia is based on totalitarian theocracy not consensus, democracy and Islam are antithetical concepts, if you disagree please provide a single example of an Islamic ruler elected by the Ummah, the existing rulers did not seek the consultation "shura" of the people they consulted their own advisors and the people sure as hell never had any consultation for who those rulers would be. And no Abu Bakr nor Umar were elected they had strong tribal backers, there was no election, and they solidified their reigns through force of arms leading to the Sunni-Shia split.

 

What is this much-vaunted western democracy that makes us whites so fantastic?

It's the power to choose between those of our elites who will be the object of manipulations by private and exclusive interest groups for the four upcoming years. People who are so wowed by it will tell you that you're the one driving the car, but in fact you're just toying with the AC's controls.

There's no wonder it's a no-sell among nations that are millenias old.

Our real political system is a plutocracy. So is theirs. The only difference lies in their ability to hide it, which is inferior to us, masters of hypocrisy - oh in that domain there's no contesting our superiority.

 

But...... significant increases in freedom of religion...........
can be enforced.....
and a movement toward democracy tends to
follow an interest in spirituality.

 

And there are times when they do. A good example is the IRA. As to religion bring the culprit, you think this because you are ignorant of Islam.

I think you're confusing Sunnism with Shiites. The Caliph is a secular leader, as he does speak for God, nor does he represent Him.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm aware of the Christian-Zionist narrative, yes.

 

But we don't want democracy in other countries, we want leaders who will obey the dictates of Washington. An example is Ukraine and Syria. In Ukraine we fostered a coup by using a small group from western Ukraine that had been part of Poland and hated Russia, and then gave out money to those willing to protest so as to create an illusion it was the will of the Ukrainian people.

Once the person Washington wanted was installed in Kiev, whoever disagreed with him was threatened, and a mass media propaganda was started by the oligarchs who owned the stations, so as to put all the blame in Ukraine on Russia.

In Syria Assad refused to succumb to the false flag attacks and the propaganda campaigns against him for the sake of the Syrian people. He wouldn't hand his country over to the terrorists and sharia law, which is what the US and its allies wanted so the war is still raging.

According to Pat Buchanan there are two nations in the Middle East that are democracies; Iran and Syria ...and they are both enemies of Washington.

 

This is pure nonsense, but it's amazing many people think so.

There's a difference between terrorists who happen to be religious, and terrorists who motivate it with religion. Muslim terrorists tend to cite koran verses all the time, and shout god is great.. I'm not an expert on the IRA, but I think they are justifying their actions with nationalism, not so much because "god wills it" as muslim terrorists do.

No, I am not. A caliph is a religious and secular leader. He's the successor of muhammad, who was also religious and secular leade.

 

Are you out of your mind? Most of the news sources in Russia are foreign owned, and even those that are not will say things against the government that would never be tolerated in the US.

As for freedom of the press in the west, it's an illusion. I've had times when I actually found an honest account by a reporter and not a repetition of what every other main stream news source was saying, and when going back so I could copy and quote it, it had been edited out.

That's when I began reading from sources which had no connection what so ever with the corporate press ...which by the way is owned by the same six corporations that control our government.

 

If this is an argument. it is amazingly weak, capitalizing on outrage to prevent further discussion about it.

Come on - I know you can do better. This is beneath you.

 

That is certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

I have to admit that you altered my view of the situation in Syria with another discussion that you began.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ghts-96-arabs-want-genocide-all-alawites.html
Why Assad Fights - 96% Arabs Want Genocide Of All Alawites

 

That's because you're insecure in your beliefs. You see, I wouldn't mind taking the whole lot of you in because I'm not worried of Islam being undermined. That's why Islam always had minority groups that outnumbered Muslims.

 

That's because their Muslim. What else are they going to justify their actions with?

There is no successor to Muhammad because he was the last prophet. Religious states can never work if there are no genuine intercessors of God calling the shots.